People v. Frye
| Decision Date | 03 November 1988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darrell H. FRYE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Raymond Urbanski, Elmira, for appellant.
James Hayden, Chemung County Dist. Atty., Elmira, for respondent.
Before KANE, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, HARVEY and MERCURE, JJ.
KANE, Justice Presiding.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Monroe, J.), rendered September 4, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.
In the course of a routine search of defendant's cell at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, a 7 1/2-inch metal shank was found on his person. Following a Superintendent's proceeding, he received 60 days in the special housing unit and a loss of 90 days' good time. He was thereafter indicted for the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, pleaded guilty to the reduced charge which is the subject of this appeal, and was duly sentenced.
In seeking reversal of his conviction on this appeal, defendant contends that (1) he has been twice punished for the same act and thus subjected to double jeopardy, and (2) the evidence taken from his cell should have been suppressed for lack of probable cause by the prison authorities to make a warrantless search. These arguments must be rejected. Loss of an inmate's privileges resulting from a prison disciplinary proceeding followed by the trial upon an indictment based on the same acts which formed the basis of the disciplinary charge does not constitute double jeopardy (People v. Briggs, 108 A.D.2d 1058, 485 N.Y.S.2d 861). Furthermore, we cannot conclude that a routine search of an inmate's cell and person is other than a reasonable procedure for the purpose of maintaining security at a correctional institution, or that such a search is in violation of any constitutional right to the expectation of privacy (see, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447; Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384).
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fonder
...escape does not place him in jeopardy, thus subsequent conviction for escape does not constitute double jeopardy); People v. Frye, 144 A.D.2d 714, 534 N.Y.S.2d 735 (1988) (no double jeopardy when prison disciplinary proceeding followed by criminal proceeding based on same prisoner acts); De......
-
People v. Vasquez
...People v. Nunez, 186 A.D.2d 317, 318, 587 N.Y.S.2d 799, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 765, 594 N.Y.S.2d 727, 610 N.E.2d 400; People v. Frye, 144 A.D.2d 714, 534 N.Y.S.2d 735, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 891, 538 N.Y.S.2d 804, 535 N.E.2d We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be......
-
People v. Nunez
...the same incident gave rise to both a criminal indictment and a prison disciplinary proceeding to be meritless (see, People v. Frye, 144 A.D.2d 714, 534 N.Y.S.2d 735, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 891, 538 N.Y.S.2d 804, 535 N.E.2d 1344). also reject defendant's claim that the People were required to......
-
People v. Sylvester
...charges and punishment based upon the same acts which form the basis of this indictment is patently meritless (see, People v. Frye, 144 A.D.2d 714, 534 N.Y.S.2d 735, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 891, 538 N.Y.S.2d 804, 535 N.E.2d Judgment and order affirmed. CASEY, J.P., and YESAWICH, LEVINE and MER......